First Person Narrator
I'm really not very good at this keeping up to date lark, am I? In my defence, work's been hectic over the last few months- I've barely had time to spend on my third book, never mind anything else. I promise to be less tardy in future.
Lately I've been thinking a lot about first person narrators. People can be unduly snobbish; if done well, there's no better way of plonking somebody in the world of the story. It's probably my favourite viewpoint; I haven't done it with my third story, since the second main character is a robot, but certainly I'm likely to use it again in the future.
First person is great for a number of reasons. You have to accept that person's version of events, whether you like it or not, which makes for a particularly interesting experience if they're villainous or mad. It feels far more immediate and authentic; yes, the Ancient Mariner might trap the wedding guest at the beginning of his tale, but it works precisely because we're seeing Death and Life in Death from his perspective. We realise everybody's bound to have their biases and things they don't want us to know (Sarah Waters plays with this beautifully in Fingersmith and Affinity), but as long as they're telling the story, we're taken right along with them.
Many of the arguments against first person don't hold water when examined closely. "Childish and non literary"? Try telling that to Dickens, who loved first person. A spoiler because it means the character survives the story? Not necessarily; look at recent critical darling The Song of Achilles, where Patroclus is able to witness events long after his death. Authors not being able to write convincingly as a different sex or age from themselves- well, that is occasionally an issue, but if it's a well written book, it shouldn't be. I don't remember anyone claiming that Harper Lee doesn't write convincingly from the perspective of a young girl. Really it boils down to genre; the best perspective for a dystopia or horror story is first person.
All those people who dismiss first person: can you imagine Jane Eyre in third person, or Lolita? I doubt it.
Lately I've been thinking a lot about first person narrators. People can be unduly snobbish; if done well, there's no better way of plonking somebody in the world of the story. It's probably my favourite viewpoint; I haven't done it with my third story, since the second main character is a robot, but certainly I'm likely to use it again in the future.
First person is great for a number of reasons. You have to accept that person's version of events, whether you like it or not, which makes for a particularly interesting experience if they're villainous or mad. It feels far more immediate and authentic; yes, the Ancient Mariner might trap the wedding guest at the beginning of his tale, but it works precisely because we're seeing Death and Life in Death from his perspective. We realise everybody's bound to have their biases and things they don't want us to know (Sarah Waters plays with this beautifully in Fingersmith and Affinity), but as long as they're telling the story, we're taken right along with them.
Many of the arguments against first person don't hold water when examined closely. "Childish and non literary"? Try telling that to Dickens, who loved first person. A spoiler because it means the character survives the story? Not necessarily; look at recent critical darling The Song of Achilles, where Patroclus is able to witness events long after his death. Authors not being able to write convincingly as a different sex or age from themselves- well, that is occasionally an issue, but if it's a well written book, it shouldn't be. I don't remember anyone claiming that Harper Lee doesn't write convincingly from the perspective of a young girl. Really it boils down to genre; the best perspective for a dystopia or horror story is first person.
All those people who dismiss first person: can you imagine Jane Eyre in third person, or Lolita? I doubt it.
No comments have been added yet.
